FW: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 3:38:57 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

I am seeking cosponsors for the following motion.

Whereas, the Statement of Principles affirms the philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail, as stated in Article 3, Section 1 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws;

Whereas, the enduring importance of the Statement of Principles requires that it may be amended only by a vote of 7/8 of all registered delegates at a Regular Convention, underscoring its foundational and binding nature;

Whereas, the Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles, as outlined in Article 2 of the Bylaws, thereby binding the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), its officers, and affiliates to act in accordance with the Statement of Principles;

Whereas, the National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties, and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws, as stated in Article 7, Section 1 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, which includes adherence to the Statement of Principles as a foundational element of the Bylaws;

Whereas, the LNC's response to the Judicial Committee in the matter of Roos et al. v. LNC, written by Jonathan McGee on behalf of the LNC, argues positions that directly violate the enforceable and binding nature of the Statement of Principles as established by these Bylaws provisions;

Be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee hereby rescinds its response submitted to the Judicial Committee regarding the appeal in Roos et al. v. LNC, and directs the Chair or appropriate officers to notify the Judicial Committee of this rescission.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 5:13:49 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

I think anything that is on behalf of the LNC should have been at least presented to the LNC before being submitted. Cosponsor

Andrew Watkins

At Large | Libertarian National Committee

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 11:38:57 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 5:42:12 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

Cosponsor

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 1:13:49 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 7:05:31 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

I agree with Andrew. 

Cosponsor. 

Thank you,

Aron Lam 

Region 1 Rep-LNC

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 11:42:12 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 9:25:47 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

Whereas 1: Agree, the SoP is foundational and defines the philosophy of the LP.

Whereas 2: Agree, the high threshold is because of its importance. It protects the SoP's permanence, not its procedural enforcement.

Whereas 3: Partially Agree, the LNC must respect the SoP philosophically.
Whereas 4: Yes, the LNC's actions must not violate the bylaws, however the SoP is not a judicially enforceable part of the bylaws.
Whereas 5: No, the LNC's response didn't violate the binding nature of the SoP.  The SoP is binding philosophically, not procedurally.  It's not a contradiction, but a distinction.
Be it resolved: No, rescinding the entire LNC response is a non sequitur.  There were plenty of arguments in the LNC response about how the SIC was not a violation of the SoP even if it were procedurally binding.  The SoP clearly means willful misrepresentation, and there is no evidence of intention to misrepresent that I have seen.

I will be voting No

Samuel Bohler At-Large, Libertarian National Committee ‪samuel...@lp.org

---

From: Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 2:05 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 2:25:27 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

For Keith's comment in the voting thread:

it’s already been tied to the Statement of Principles, that’s why this motion exists. Just rescind it and submit a new response. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 5:25:47 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 2:42:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

Thanks for the clarification, Sam, particularly regarding Whereas #5...

For the record, the portion of the Statement of Principles in question is that we "support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."

Mr. Mcgee explains:

"The LNC maintains that it is not bound by the Statement of Principles and further asserts that

the Statement of Principles is a philosophical foundation and not a self-executing disciplinary

code."

• Jonathan McGee, speaking on behalf of the whole LNC to the Judicial Committee

If these are the principles based upon which the LP "is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail", where's the distinction you refer too? Does hiding conflicting payments to a SIC member not count as misrepresentation?

It is rather disturbing to see the frankness of so many people on the LNC arguing against prohibition on robbery, trespass, fraud and misrepresentation applying to the LNC.

Andrew Chadderdon

Region 1 Rep | Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 10:25:30 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 2:45:07 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

Thanks for the strawman, Mr. Chadderdon.

Samuel Bohler At-Large, Libertarian National Committee ‪samuel...@lp.org

---

From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 9:42 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 3:52:19 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

I realize that's what Mr. Chadderdon and others are saying, but I think they're aiming at what they wish Mr. McGee was saying and not what he actually said.

Clearly, I support the Statement of Principles. 

• That's why I was against the Joint Fundraising Committee.
• That's why I opposed our former Chair's soft-endorsement of Trump.
• That's why I opposed our Party's support for RFK Jr.
• That's why I oppose ICE roundups and blanket denials of rights to trans people.
• That's why I oppose taxation and violations of 2A rights.
• That's why I oppose affiliates advocating anti-libertarian stances.
• That's why I oppose having the LP endorse old party candidates.
• That's why I oppose corrupt self-dealing with Party funds, in direct violation of the Policy Manual.

That's why I believe that, in every action, we should adhere to the strict non-initiation of force and fraud, or the threat thereof. 

Whether it's voluntary trade under systems we may not personally like, or living a lifestyle that's unlike my own, so long as it's voluntary and consensual, it should not be a political or legal matter.

Regarding Mr. McGee's appeal - my interpretation is not that he stands opposed to these principles shared by most of us.

My interpretation is that he's making a clinical argument specifically in regard to the bylaws, and the scope of the JC. 

My reading of Mr. McGee's argument is not that the LNC stands above the Statement of Principles, to which we are morally bound, but that the appellant's argument against the LNC is factually incorrect in asserting that we've violated the bylaws — even if there was a SoP violation, which there was not.

It is an argument that, even in a parallel universe where this was a violation, it's still a matter for the membership to decide and not the JC itself.

Given that the JC upheld the Party fundraising for RFK Jr., even after he'd endorsed Trump, it's clear the SoP's binding is moral and not judicial, or the JC would have instantly shot down such a flagrant violation. 

I see this attempt to withdraw the McGee response not as genuine principled concern, but rather yet another bite at the "actually, repeated self-dealing misappropriation in direct violation of policy is okay" apple. 

Were the detractors' concern for principle higher than the desire for political theater, they would have joined me in opposing actual corruption rather than nitpicking every step toward accountability. 

If this were on principle, the same concern would have been raised over previous JC appeal responses, such as when the LNC issued a response to Caryn Ann's improper removal. It seems to me that the issue isn't over procedure.

" Just rescind it and submit a new response. "

If the concern is truly over Mr. McGee's reading of the bylaws and my reading is incorrect, and the better approach would be to file a competing appeal - one that defends the LNC while making what you feel are better arguments. Then move that the LNC endorse it over what has been submitted.

It would certainly not bother me to have competing responses.

But my understanding is that we cannot submit another response because the deadline has passed (as confirmed by a JC member).

Were any other defenses of the LNC in the appeal submitted for consideration?

Further, while I am a strong supporter of the SoP, I also recognize that different members have wildly different interpretations of it — that's why we have a platform. Empowering the JC to reject LNC actions over their interpretation of the SoP may sound great, but I question what that would look like if the JC composition were different. 

The JC's interpretation of the SoP can vary wildly depending on its members. 

If I were a JC member, my reading may be very different than if -say- Mr. Chadderdon was a JC member.

I think there are strong arguments that hosting Trump, Vivek, and RFK Jr. rallies at our convention was a violation.

I also think the LNC running ads for RFK Jr. was a violation.

And I think using one's LNC title to host a Trump rally is a violation.

Clearly others would disagree, yet we may both assert that our vision is in line with the Party's Principles. 

(Of course, I'd be correct.)

Matters of principle are ultimately up to the membership, and not the judicial committee to determine. 

End textwall,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 9:25 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 5:10:52 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Aron Lam <aron...@lp.org>; Andrew Watkins <andrew....@lp.org>; Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Seeking Cosponsors: Rescind LNC Response to JC in Roos vs LNC

You guys can apply all the mental gymnastics you want to justify this atrocity, but it doesn’t change the facts. If you don't want to be known as the backstabbers of liberty, then you shouldn’t proclaim that “principles don’t apply to us!” 

And that is EXACTLY what was said, unambiguously and unironically.

Everyone defending this insanity rather than rescinding it is guilty of the same. 

Full stop. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Join the fight and support the removal of Socialists from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 5:52:19 AM